How can you ask god for a cure and not blame him for the cause ?

[Lytton]

So in order for creationists to have a reasonable conversation with evolutionists both sides need to offer the other a bit of slack. Or rather, a lot of slack!

I am under no onus to offer thick people a bit of slack to try and compromise the things I believe (facts) with quack ideas. If something is true there is no requirement to modify it, least of all if it's a well-rounded scientific framework.

The thing is now we're having a sensible conversation about things you're quite willing to agree that evolution is incomplete. But looking over the last few pages that's not the feeling you get from reading the responses from the evolution side.

The problem with Kedge/Win8.1 is that he has a long reputation for trashing and derailing threads on a miriad of topics. He is by far the worst troll on this forum, and his relentless dross outweighs any minor insult you might find on these last few pages.

Also having not read the whole thread I'm sure the creationist side of the argument are equally to blame for the conversation degenerating. But having looked at the last few pages I thought it worth trying to bring back some balance.

There is no balance needed, the conversation is already balanced. Claiming that the young earth creatards need to have an equal say is invalid, you can't just rock up to the table with any wild opinion and demand that it has equal validity to something well established, least of all if you bring no evidence to support your wild hypothesis.

I think what grates with me is that it is also my understanding that the are questions to be asked on evolution and there are things that aren't fully understood. But there seems to be a culture of "well if you have questions on evolution then clearly your a idiot for not understanding, or just to be written off as a crazy creationist" rather than sensible scientific debate.

Obviously it can be difficult to engage in scientific debate when people have religious beliefs outside science. But the attitudes on the side of the scientists to me seems just as bad.

I think I the main point of posting the article was just that:
- although yes evolution is the best theory we have
- there are questions within the academic community about it
- people shouldn't be so judgemental and quick to claim evolution has everything wrapped up

That's not necessarily the case with regards to evolution at all. There are minor differences of agreement within the world of evolution sciences with regards to population movements, rates of change in specific populations, haploid frequencies etc etc, but make no mistake, the fundamentals are absolutely agreed upon. What we have here is akin to a 'moon made of cheese' contingent from the creationist side. If someone came to you and argued passionately but without evidence that the moon was made of cheese, would you treat their 'opinion' with equal validity or would you be frank with them? As others have mentioned, there are no gaps within evolutionary theory because it is basically a yes/no answer with regards to genetic mutations. The only gaps are in the physical fossil record, for obvious reasons, because one would not rationally expect every fossil of everything that ever lived to be pooled together in one convenient place, ready for instant discovery. The gaps are in finding pieces of certain creatures in the earth, the theory itself is basically sound. To introduce an element of doubt again suggests that there are gaping holes in the theory, or suggests that another competing theory has equally validity; neither of these scenarios are true however:

Orthogenesis and outright Saltationism have been proposed in the past, and have now been discarded. There are one or two other evolution franework alternatives that have been discarded as well. There is no discussion to have in this context until new evidence is presented which challenges evolution. If it does and it is serious stuff, then science will adapt and incorporate the new knowledge, as it always does.

 

[Uriel]

You can expect someone to be civil and try to understand other positions though. I had a Young Earth Creationist on my Geology degree course. She took all the Palaeontology modules, could describe the scientific account of evolution very well. She just wouldn't accept it, based on her understanding of Scripture and she was clear about that. She did occasionally have the odd moan to Christians and Muslims on the course, telling us that we should be on 'her side' but she was never rude about it and she managed to function in that environment.

She could also have a conversation about her faith without everything turning into cretinism vs evilution.

What goes on in these threads is quite something else.

 

[El Capitano]

Screeeech / El Capitano.

The thing is you can't really rock up into a thread with the word God in its title and expect to have a purely scientific discussion.

Except the aspects that it's been devolved into again are in areas that science has very good and pretty close to outright proven answers to. The very areas being debated are in areas where certain religious members are outright denying reality because it doesn't match their book of choice.

If you accept the possibility of God into a conversation, who's a being the isn't confined by the rules of physics then all bets are off!

Except that way lies madness. We could invoke the FSM of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, since denying reality is apparently now allowed.

You can't blame people with religious beliefs for saying what they think in a thread like this one. You should feel free to come in and discuss the merits of evolution but you can't expect the conversation to stay away from things that people believe that are often not provable true or false by scientific debate.

This isn't an isolated incident, there is literally a term now in this forum for a thread getting kedged. It's not like these people are discussing religious matters, they are outright denying things we have mountains of evidence of, repeating the same debunked rubbish repeatedly whilst ignoring anything that they can't reconcile with their book.

Some people in this thread may well be baiting by this point, but the evolutionist side is also reacting to it. So I'm still sticking with if you go into a thread like this one then both sides should be expecting to cut each other some slack. Or as is the Internet feel free to just flat out argue away - it's a viable Internet alternative!

I tell you what, since you're somebody who seems to think evolution has "unanswered questions", why don't you try bringing them to the table instead of sitting at the sidelines passing judgement over us all?

 

[Lytton]

The Church of England recognises evolution. Other major churches have given the nod to it. We absolutely should be surprised when religious people subscribe to conspiracy nonsense in the face of overwhelming evidence, especially when so many more have easily absorbed the facts of life in to their faith and had no trouble reconciling the two. Whilst it's easy to laugh at silly ideas, there is a cause for concern when they appear to be on the rise. Stupid ideas occasionally need challenging because people have a habit of indoctrinating their poor children and spreading the dross to other naive adults. This is the uk, and frankly it's embarrassing when we begin to look more like the USA or rural Pakistan. There is zero requirement for me to treat these ideas as anything other than trash. Sometimes ignoring stupid or dangerous ideas isn't the best option.

 

[El Capitano]

If you can understand how, chemically, microevolution happens, you can understand how macroevolution happens. Macroevolution is simply the result of lots of microevolution.

 

[Lytton]

Genetic mutations can accumulate over time. Unless we have evidence to the contrary showing that the earth is in fact very young, then there is no reason to suppose that changes can't accumulate. The fact that the human chromosome 2 is evidently a fusion of two chromosomes still present in chimps, and the fact that some of my genes can be knocked out and replaced with identical genes from a mouse, strongly suggests common ancestry. If we didn't have common ancestry, one would rationally expect us to be made out of very different types of 'stuff'. The paper you cited does not represent mainstream thought, if the author doesn't understand something then his argument is one from incredulity. 14 year olds understand it, if he can't then that is a drawback of his reasoning, not the scientific facts. He doesn't appear to actually bring any counter evidence to the table, unusually, but merely reiterates that he accepts micro but not macro, even though as pointed out the latter is just the former but after a bit more accumulation. He doesn't need someone to point out the chemical processes because he seems to have grasped them already, weirdly. He also signed a discovery institute petition which he later defended - the discovery institute are notorious quacks and their output is laughable. He also makes a point of being a Christian and suggests that he's happy in the middle as if both 'sides' of the debate make good and balanced points; they don't, only the 'scientific' side of things enquires in this fashion. The bible is part history and part spiritual guide, amongst other bits, but it's not a scientific field manual and nor should it be used as one. I wouldn't try to disprove germ theory using the Quran, for obvious reasons.

 

[jpod]

I think it is an interesting thread, but we have not solved the question of whether the patient has free will.

Our human genome, our fundamentals, our brain evolved to survive as clever chimpanzees if you will as hunter gatherers. We have pattern recognition and struggle to comprehend chance, cause and effect and early man understandably made supernatural explanations to cope.

Is it possible that people who are so inclined pray to a supernatural entity in the hope of a cure because that is how they have been brought up plus it is a human condition favoured by our genes.

Bear in mind way back I posted a scientific study that patients who were told they were being prayed for did worse.

 

[win8.1]

Now would you not agree that it is religious people who appear to be the ones bringing the most destruction on themselves and others, and if they accepted that we are all the same species, human, with common ancestors and that we should lead a meaningful life, and look after each other, the world would be a better place?

If religion and scripture is so great how come no one who follows it appears to be happy. A look on the BBC website alone illustrates it is the basis of wrong thinking, war, terror, human rights abuse, abuse of women, child abuse, murder and rape.

Those that are saved (quite different from religious people) already know all men are part of mankind with a common creator. War,terror, abuse of women, child abuse, murder and rape are all part of the fallen and wicked condition mankind is in and only God can take him out of this depraved condition. The largely pagan society we live in today is only waxing worse to their own destruction which a Holy God will set right in His own good time.

 

[Usher]

him out of this depraved condition. The largely pagan society we live in today is only waxing worse to their own destruction which a Holy God will set right in His own good time.

I presume you are expecting Noah ( now 5,000 years old )to build his boat again any time soon ?

 

[win8.1]

I presume you are expecting Noah ( now 5,000 years old )to build his boat again any time soon ?

Not judgement by flood:

"Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." 2 Peter 3:6-7

 

[tyler_jrb]

I think more so it is hope than anything. Hope that if they pray to God they will be cured or whatever. After all to survive is what makes us human. I know many people that blame God for their mistakes, and bad things in their life.

I personally don't beleive in God. I just find the idea stupid. There is evidence all around of evolution. And think how far it has changed in the last few hundred years. Never mind billions of years. We understand more about the universe than ever before and there is still so much to understand.

I think the natural evolution of cells and animals over billions on years is much more probable. Rather than someone forming us over thousands of years (or week to the bible) That would take some serious power.

I think if there was a God it would be a particle, some equation that allows us to form. Rather than a supernatural being.

People also yet to realise people 2000 years ago were not cavemen. And there would be smart people like today. So they can make valid points about the world around them.

 

[Uriel]

In trying to make my point originally I did post an article from who appears to be a well respected academic, who references other academic writing, who is saying:

"I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened"

I had a quick look at the page but not the rest of the detail.

I agree that it's simply an argument from incredulity. Some people do make desisions on such things - for example Anthony Flew who moved from atheism to an agnostic leaning theism because he could not explain the structure of DNA. People are entitled to make such decisions but it's not really the conclusion of a rational argument. If anything it's an asethetic preference or a leap of faith based on the idea "if I can't understand it, it can't be true".

I sometimes get rather uncomfortable with people saying part of their journey to believing in Christ, was essentially an argument from incredulity. I'm glad of their faith but I don't think the decision was based on a watertight argument. I usually don't challenge it.

When Darwin proposed evolution by natural selection he had no idea about genetics. One of the people credited with discovering genetics was Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian Monk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel - it's perhaps that pesky St Augustine influincing people to think for themselves again...) and his work wasn't widely recognised until after his death. It just so happens that genetics complements evolution by natural selection very well. It gives an explanatory mechanism for what was previously just an empirical based theory derived from observation. Of course there is more to be discovered. Future discoveries may fundamentally alter our understanding of the process.

But all I expect from a dominant scientific model is to be the best curently available model that fits the evidence. Absolute (or key fundamental...) truth is not expected (although there may exist an absolute truth...). Likewise I treat theology in a similar way, achnowledging the limits of human language (even Holy Spirit inspired human language) and my own ability to understand what might just be beyond me.

 

[Usher]

Not judgement by flood:

"Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." 2 Peter 3:6-7

Regarding your refusal to accept any evidence of evolution

Are you aware that your own body has evidence ? your ears, eyes & skin all contain now defunct mechanisms from early man, the fact they no longer have purpose is because we have evolved

Humans have a remnant (but non-working) third eyelid

humans have extrinsic ear muscles, once used to swivel ears in all direction much as seen today in all animals but in humans are now very feeble

Why do we have Goose bumps?

Humans get goose bumps when they are cold, frightened, angry, or in awe. Many other creatures get goose bumps for the same reason, for example this is why a cat or dog’s hair stands on end and the cause behind a porcupine’s quills raising. In cold situations, the rising hair traps air between the hairs and skin, creating insulation and warmth. In response to fear, goose bumps make an animal appear larger – hopefully scaring away the enemy. Humans no longer benefit from goose bumps and they are simply left over from our past when we were not clothed and needed to scare our own natural enemies. Natural selection removed the thick hair but left behind the mechanism for controlling it.

Although I know you will not accept it & spout some biblical passages there are several others, look here

http://listverse.com/2009/01/05/top-10-signs-of-evolution-in-modern-man/

 

[Uriel]

But as far as Genesis goes, for me the immediate thing that sticks out is the whole 7 days thing and the age of the universe.
Genesis is trying to describe something that happened before anything existed, being done by a being that exists outside of time. And it's described in "days" that are a unit of time that describe how long it takes for a rock that is spinning to point towards the bright burning gas again. Neither of which existed at the start of the description!

Unfortunately, if you follow my posts and Win8.1's responses in this thread it will become clear that you have just outed yourself as as someone who isn't born again and doesn't truly and wholeheartedly believe the bible, according to his criteria. That's what we're dealing with here.

Anyway - nice to have some company (unless I've fundamentally misunderstood you).

 

[win8.1]

Regarding your refusal to accept any evidence of evolution

Are you aware that your own body has evidence ?

Look I know you want to believe the fable of macro evolution is true and it may be a comfort blanket now so you can avoid thinking about any responsibility before God for a life of habitual sin and unbelief but when you pass away and face a Holy Almighty God the dread and terror a person will experience when they realize evolution was a lie and their trust in what certain scientists said was true was a misplaced trust, that will be an awful day.

And Stephen Fry who thinks he would even be able to talk back to Almighty God there will be no such thing. Men are just puny compared to the God who created this vast universe.

God desires men to be saved but men are responsible to receive that salvation or reject it to perish eternally.

 

[win8.1]

Unfortunately, if you follow my posts and Win8.1's responses in this thread it will become clear that you have just outed yourself as as someone who isn't born again and doesn't truly and wholeheartedly believe the bible, according to his criteria. That's what we're dealing with here.

Anyway - nice to have some company (unless I've fundamentally misunderstood you).

Apart from you and others rejecting creational truth (like the atheists do) yet claiming to be part of the redeemed all you would have to tell those who are truly saved was how you became a believer and what gospel that you heard and believed and they would know that it was not the same Gospel the early church received and someone who has not received the fundamental doctrines of Christ.

Finding out your truly lost would be a blessing as many who claim to be Christian never have found out this truth and that is why they never have been truly saved.

 

[tyler_jrb]

Look I know you want to believe the fable of macro evolution is true and it may be a comfort blanket now so you can avoid thinking about any responsibility before God for a life of habitual sin and unbelief but when you pass away and face a Holy Almighty God the dread and terror a person will experience when they realize evolution was a lie and their trust in what certain scientists said was true was a misplaced trust, that will be an awful day.

And Stephen Fry who thinks he would even be able to talk back to Almighty God there will be no such thing. Men are just puny compared to the God who created this vast universe.

God desires men to be saved but men are responsible to receive that salvation or reject it to perish eternally.

I don't mind people who beleive in God, that is their own belief. But I hate it when people preach God stuff with no evidence.

If you can't see evolution you must be blind.

there is probably an infinite amount of life in the universe. Do you think God cares about you? Infinite life dying and living yet there to meet you in heaven?

We can see evidence for the scientific part, What do you have? .

Paper made by human hands that has been re-written, re-translated countless times. That states the earth is 4000 years old. Which has been proven wrong.